‘Cameron has most peers on his side – including, sadly, many Labour ones, some friends of mine who entered as reformers and ended up “going native”.’
Photograph: Reuters

When Ed Miliband asked me last year to stand down as an MP because he wanted me in the Lords, this came right out of the blue. After 50 years in politics, from militant protester to cabinet minister, including a quarter of a century an MP, it was not something I had imagined doing. On the other hand I had never imagined being an MP, still less a privy councillor.

I had already been chosen by Neath Labour party to stand again in May 2015. It wasn’t an easy decision – unless of course you believe any participation in our parliamentary structures amounts to “betrayal”. But after considerable thought I agreed to Ed’s request, not least because I believe that the constitutional crisis provoked by the continued pressure for Scottish independence means Lords reform is now more essential than ever.

A key part of my decision was that legislation for radical reform of the Lords can only be delivered with the backing of the Lords themselves, and they have always been resistant. Which is why more peers in favour of reform are crucially important.

My view hasn’t, nor will it, change that a senate or House of Lords should be, at the very least, majority-elected on the same day as a general election, ideally by a similar list system of proportional representation on the same boundaries as for European elections. That would enable each of the nations and regions (from north-east England to Northern Ireland) within the United Kingdom to be properly represented, fairly reflecting the aspirations of all our citizens and helping to bind us together in a way that both Houses of Parliament have palpably failed to do.

Proposals from Jack Straw, drawn up for and endorsed by the last Labour government in July 2008, and the very similar ones from Nick Clegg for the coalition government in 2012, should form the basis for moving forward.

A reformed institution will give a proper voice to the whole of the UK and act as an effective complement to a House of Commons which – because of the first-past-the-post voting procedure – does not fairly represent our citizens politically. If indirectly elected in this way, peers would not enjoy the same mandate as MPs, who are directly accountable to their constituents, and would therefore not threaten the supremacy of the House of Commons – an objection often voiced against reform. In any event, this can be resolved by legislation confirming MPs’ continuing primacy.

However, a democratic second chamber would also act as a valuable and much more legitimate check on successive UK governments which have been increasingly elected by a minority of voters and an even smaller minority of the electorate.

The current Tory government received the support of just over a third of voters and less than a quarter of the electorate, the last Labour government much the same. The new Tory-backed system for individual (as opposed to household) voter registration promises to shrink the voting electorate, undermining even further the popular legitimacy of parliament.

By ruling out Lords reform, David Cameron is being dangerously complacent, encouraging both separatism in Scotland and alienation in England which, London excepted, remains the most centralised and therefore disenfranchised part of the UK.

I realise that Cameron has most peers on his side – including, sadly, many Labour ones, some friends of mine who entered as reformers and ended up “going native”.

But surely nobody would seriously suggest that any new democracy in the world had an institution majority-determined by patronage and still minority-determined by accident of birth (or rather an ancestor rewarded centuries ago for sleeping with the king of the day)? So why should our existing democracy tolerate that?